An Aberrant Abundance of Cronbach’s Alpha Values at .70
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cronbach’s α is the most widely reported metric of the reliability of psychological measures. Decisions about an observed α’s adequacy are often made using rule-of-thumb thresholds, such as α of at least .70. Such thresholds can put pressure on researchers to make their measures meet these criteria, similar to the pressure to meet the significance threshold with p values. We examined whether α values reported in the psychology literature are inflated at the rule-of-thumb thresholds (αs = .70, .80, .90) because of, for example, overfitting to in-sample data (α-hacking) or publication bias. We extracted reported α values from three very large data sets covering the general psychology literature (> 30,000 α values taken from > 74,000 published articles in American Psychological Association [APA] journals), the industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology literature (> 89,000 α values taken from > 14,000 published articles in I/O journals), and the APA’s PsycTests database, which aims to cover all psychological measures published since 1894 (> 67,000 α values taken from > 60,000 measures). The distributions of these values show robust evidence of excesses at the α = .70 rule-of-thumb threshold that cannot be explained by justifiable measurement practices. We discuss the scope, causes, and consequences of α-hacking and how increased transparency, preregistration of measurement strategy, and standardized protocols could mitigate this problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.086 | 0.389 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".